Hell let Loose - Was the trailer THAT bad?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2023
- Team17 released a Hell Let Loose trailer that clearly hadn't been checked before release and have since removed it altogether. Unhappy players have review bombed the game on Steam forcing the developer to respond.
More drama than you can shake a stick at, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture...
#hellletloose - Hry
I think it more likely the British weren’t finished and they just pushed what they had
@braxtonmoore9246 That sounds very likely for sure. They seem to think that bad / unfinished content is better than no content. I can't figure out why!
@@twiglets2The British Update was also released like a month earlier than planned on the roadmap
@@JackMarston.1895 I had to double check the dates for myself but you're right, the road map said June and it released in May. Hmmm!
I thought you were the real Mark Felton for a moment haha
anyone who has been around long enough knew that woud happen it was so predictable
@@dye5915 true, it's a shame...but true
They really really really shot themselves with the foot by corporate pushing for a large new update *before* the Summer Games Fest, so they could have the update out, the new higher price set, and then a flashy new trailer to entice new players to come in. What we actually ended up with... Well, you already explained it in the video. Now we'll see if they'll actually make the effort to improe the game in the way that it deserves. It's a good game and it should be successful.
@varyagace6194 That's a very good way of explaining their corporate thought process. I do envisage a bunch of passionate game developers being whipped by corporate to hit unrealistic deadlines and revenue targets. The idea of 6 months pure bug fixing probably sounds ridiculous to the corpos, but it's the only way!
Bug fixes before new content
@alexanderpippington9277 Amen. Is your name actually Alexander Pippington? If so, that's an excellent name!
@@twiglets2 - haha I wish it was. Unfortunately it was a name I made up when I joined a holdfast regiment (a napoleonic first/third person shooter). Real names Tyler, much less interesting 🥲
@@alexanderpippington9277 haha I'm a big fan of Holdfast, played it a bit but actually just watch very entertaining videos of over enthusiastic players. It was only yesterday I was watching the vid of the Scottish bloke calling everyone the c word 🤣
A dev has said parachuting is not possible, the new game mode can only be hosted with a separate server since it's a reduced player count. And I reckon after about 2-3 plays the new mode will get boring and largely ignored. I dont get how one new game mode with one section of a reused map will garner a change of heart...
@kennethbowers2897 It seems a lot of hopes are being pinned on this smaller game mode, and I'm sceptical that it will deliver!
If they take the time to turn it into a decent experience then fair enough. But if they literally just take a section of an existing map, plonk a smaller number of players close together and expect it to be awesome, I'm not so sure...!
Reviews are one of few ways a invested customer can show their support or displeasure with a company......especially when they don't listen to you otherwise. Company does what they are supposed to.....they don't get bad reviews. Pretty simple formula. You mention bug fixes. Ya they listed bug fixes.......projected undetermined (Non-PTE) fixes for what they broke. Keep in mind we are on round 3 of the exact same plan. You stated "If they can turn around and genuinely tell us they fixed the loadout bug and the grenade bug" (Thats not all the old bugs btw). In the latest brief, tell me where they even mentioned this to elicit you thinking they will even be addressed? Because I didn't draw that from what they wrote.
@voltz3346 what do you mean by round 3 of the same plan? I think I've missed something there...
I don't have their update in front of me now but from memory they mention historic bugs being fixed, not just the new ones. They have previously said they are looking at those specific bugs so I was hoping (perhaps naively!) That they will take a more serious look at those.
All remains to be seen of course but delaying the next update seems a sensible (the only?) Option to me.
The animators who made this thing they call a trailer had to been high on otherwordly stuff
@coolduck4284 It's bizarre that they thought this was good enough. I suspect they were over worked, under paid and had a constantly moving remit from those above them making it impossible!
everyone tends to see the negative aspect first but as you did you slowed your roll and thought outside the box. and from what it look likes team17 is rolling up its sleeves for that final push into the Point. Will they win the cap race that depends on how fast and well these bug fixes get done now and futher down the road.
@richardolvera842 absolutely, negativity first, and CZcams comments tend to focus on the negative too which is why I was surprised to hear many positive comments about the new update!
Time will tell, they seem to be taking quality of life more seriously now, a shame it took review bombing to do it!
I'm not big into Hell Let Loose, so I wasn't aware that there was any drama around this. However, I will say this: I watched the PC Gamer event live, and when the trailer started playing, I was genuinely shocked how lame and amateurish it was. But I was even more shocked when at the end of the trailer it turned out to be a Hell Let Loose trailer. During the entire playtime I figured it was for some cheap and lame WW2 shooter slapped together by a first-time developer in Unity. It's very weird that by the end of it, it turns out to be for a game you actually kind of like. I personally don't care about trailers and consume very little information before games are released (I just want to know about the announcements basically and the gist of what developers are trying to accomplish, and then I wait 'til it's out there and available for purchase), so for me to end up having such a strong reaction to a trailer is honestly pretty rare.
Now do I think that there was a huge overreaction to some dumb trailer? Yes, absolutely. Do I think they should have never released a trailer that was THAT BAD during a live PC Gamer event. Yes, absolutely.
@robinmattheussen2395 well said my friend
How is the player base on this? I have thought about buying it but like you said in the video the reviews have become mixed with the update? Minus the content been added I’m interested on how full the servers are.
@DRM190 the playerbase and number of full servers are all very healthy. You'll hear talk of historic bugs, but the reality is you won't experience them often, but experienced players are frustrated certain bugs have been around for a long time.
It's a fun game, more tactical than battlefield or cod but still accessible. If you have an interest id encourage you to pick it up in the next sale!
@@twiglets2 thank you for the reply. Once a sale starts I’m going to grab it.
@@DRM190 Let us know what you think when you do!
@@twiglets2 will do. I’m waiting on the summer sale to pick it up. Along with some other games I’m waiting on.
I dislike review bombing, however, if it is effective in getting them to pause and fix the game. Review bomb away!
@ventmonster Yeah, gotta admit it's done the job on this occasion!! Hopefully they get it to a state where the reviews get back to very positive soon
Lost connections, Lag, etc. Team 17 is running this game right into the ground, they promise a lot and deliver very little. Burning Lands can't get here fast enough.
@wishbone66 Much will depend on what they do over the next few months. Safe to say the honeymoon period is over!
I'm so excited for Burning Lands but I don't think we even have a release date yet?
I am just still so dissapointed with the dutch map, really, no buildings open to use other than barns?
@Kraniumbrud I've heard a lot of positive feedback about the Dutch map, but perhaps that's specifically about the bridge aspect rather than the map as a whole.
It wasn't a total disaster at least!
@@twiglets2 the lack of buildings that you can interact with cursed the map to mediocrety, that and the uniformity of the map, everything, to me, feels the same
@@Kraniumbrud I don't suppose El Alamein is better in your opinion? I've had performance issues on it unfortunately
@@twiglets2 Alemein is okey, I feel like it does its buildings better, and they fit the setting better, but I will say that it is almost a different game when playin El, it is just so different
@@Kraniumbrud exactly, El Alamein atleast brings something new to the game, playing that map is just so different in terms of gameplay and also in terms of overall looks, i´ve enjoyed that map more than any of the recent new maps, just beacause it feels so different. I hope that T17 will be able to fix those performance issues (I didnt really feel any, thats m8b why i am so possitive bout this map).
Shooters have really gone down the pan of late, i'm not even going to look at this one any more i think the saying is ''same old same old'' hmm pooh! thanks for letting me know what i wont be missing twiglets, love twiglets btw actually anything marmite lol. love to all.
@gunhojput thank you! Have you heard of Battlebit? It's a shooter that released this week, I played it in early access and it was pretty awesome. Blocky graphics but huge player numbers, destructible maps and vehicles, it's really rather fun and a bit different, which I think we need these days!
@@twiglets2 i will check it out all best.
Let's not get hasty and start commending them for simply stating they plan on doing what should have been done from the start - better QA.
So far, it's just words and hollow apologies. First, I want to see the results, then I'll start commending them. Just because they paid £46 mil for this game doesn't mean they know what they're doing with it. HLL isn't Worms. It'll require some actual thought. So far, all I see is them seizing the opportunity to milk a cow by turning a niche game into a mass market product. Everything they've done this far has been sub-par. Should have polished Black Matter's work before simply hitting the Upload button, because I feel that's all they could be bothered doing.
Also, have they communicated to us their vision for the future of this game or was it just a promise of new content? Because that's all I hear them saying- new content. Adding content or making changes without carefully considering the implications and balancing is just plain stupid and lazy development.
@hodsmat A change in direction is good, much better than forging ahead with all this new content! But you're right, it's all just words right now. An update that was largely created by others, a roadmap that has been delayed twice already, and a trailer that ended up having to be removed.
So far it reeks of corporate deadlines to me. HLL has problems, they inherited those problems and need to fix them. They have released very long lists of bug fixes not long ago, but I suspect they were the low hanging fruit that won't make a huge difference to the player experience.
I do believe in staying positive, changing course is a good move, but we shall see what they do.
I'm curious what you would see as decent, tangible improvements, that would make you start to think they're more than just talk?
@Twiglets2 For the past 3.5 years I've been working for a company that bought another company's product, so I know a thing or two about working on someone else's project. That being said, from experience, I can say that the best course of action is to take your time talking to your customers about what they like, dislike, or would like to improve in the current functionality. It can give a good idea of where to go from there. That would be my advice to them - take it slow and steady. Get to know your game and it's player base first. Don't just throw in new stuff, developed by your predecessors. That will rarely go well. Here's what I would work on if I was in their place:
- Focus on polishing what we already have in the game. Other than the obvious fixing of bugs that we've had for years, I would prioritize reworking the collision boxes for all of the old maps, especially. Currently, it can be a nightmare traversing some of them in vehicles. And even as infantry, there are so many spots you can get stuck or having trouble vaulting over.
- Vehicle combat requires a rework. Right now, all we see is the heavys being the meta. No variety, no alternatives. I would experiment on making map specific tanks rather than have them all available all the time.
- Quality of life improvements. Review the loadouts (as an example, why is the flamethrower being a primary weapon and not secondary, like ATs). Flamethrower range should be bigger and fire from the flame shoud create a suppression effect (Ive been in a small foundry before and heat in genral can make it very difficult to focus, much so if you're being the target of a flamethrower). Adding jeeps as default HQ spawns (honestly, I barely seem them used because most commanders don't want to waste recourses). Just get rid of arty already and make it a commander ability (they already have the framework for it as Katiusha strikes). And probably a lot more that I can't remember from the top of my head right now.
- Rebalance/rework the Defence mode. As it is right now, the mode is very map and point dependent on how successful will the defending or the attacking team be. There are certain points that are either impossible to defend or impossible to overtake even with minimum defenses set up. The attacking team, in most cases, doesn't even need to focus on generating resources, while the defending team would greatly benefit from a resource pool at the start of the match to begin setting up defenses faster.
Anyway, I could keep going, but you get the point. Polishing existing content and gameplay should have been their priority for the first year of ownership with a small trickle of new stuff where needed.
I'm a sucker for tanks, so I have some great ideas on how to make them better and more fun, while also creating a good and fair monetization framework for the company. I know they're not running a charity and money has to be generated somehow. Sales of a niche game will only take you so far. But, that should be a project for the future, once they iron out all the kinks and finally squash these damn loadout and granade bugs))
@@hodsmat all sounds very sensible to me. I'd be interested to hear your ideas on tanking improvements sometime as I'm mainly a tanker myself.
Personally I'd like them to start work on the bigger picture, fleshing out how the resources work, how you capture points, spawning. It all feels very early access now, when it's definitely no longer an early access price!
Twiglets2 It's time for them to shift away from the current loadout model where you can run 1944 equipment and weapons on a 1941 maps. This will help bring more realism and variety to maps as players will be forced to work with what's available rather than run their favorite top-tier loadout.
The same should be with tanks. The obvious starting point is to add all sorts of tanks with their various modifications and types. There has been a butt load of pz3 and pz4 modifications, each serving its purpose. Same for shermans, T-34s, Crusaders, etc. Why not add them?
That said, the tanks should also be map specific and period correct. There shouldn't be panthers, cromwells, or fireflies on El Alamein. Instead, there should be pz3, pz4, valentines, m3 Lee, and crusaders. So, in order to shift to this historical accuracy, each tank should be available only on maps where they were historically used.
In terms of mechanics, the crew should be able to operate with hatch closed or hatch opened. Meaning, as a driver, I should be able to stick my head out and drive as they did IRL, hopefully giving me a better idea of where the heck I'm going. As someone who mostly plays as the driver (because I enjoy it), I could really use this feature. Same for commander. In fact, the US doctrine stated that the commanders should operate with them sticking out of their cupola to have a better tactical awareness. This will bring its own risk and reward as a crew member with his head sticking out will be a prime target. But this may greatly benefit in terms of gameplay as the commander should be able to use his binoculars and gun while looking out. It's much safer to pop halfway out of the cupola and shred that pesky engineer while he's trying to satchel you than try to dismount and orientate yourself to where he should be relative to the tank.
Tanks in ww2 could deploy smokes. And they should do that in the game as well. Especially if you need to retreat. My crew and I have used Sherman's smoke rounds on many occasions to obscure the enemy's line of sight and back away into safety. And considering that both British and German tanks could and did deploy smokes IRL, this should also be a feature in the game.
Commander's cupola MG is another important part of the mechanic that also ties into the ability to pop out of the hatch. Shermans had MGs on the back of the turret that could be used by both crew and infantry. Soviet and German tank commanders had MGs on their cupolas too. I haven't seen any MGs on British tanks, though, but hey, this game has never been about balance))
Now for the fun part - cosmetics. There are 2 ways to go about it: 1) no player customization like we have right now, but with a lot more random options or 2) give the player the customization and even monitize it...
Here's what I mean:
1) To tie this into historical accuracy, the devs can have various stowage, camo, markings, etc. for each tank, but that will be randomly generated once the vehicle has been spawned. This will give much needed variety as well as showcase the various types of options available at the battle or region, making it a bit more exciting than seeing the same old beige panzer or olive drab sherman over and over again.
2) Give the players the option to customize each tank with map specific camo, markings, stowage, twigs, etc. These should be tied to the tank commander. So when the tank is spawned, it's your generic fresh from the factory version, but once the commander (not the crew) gets in, the tank's appearance changes permanently for that specific tank. If you want an example of a game that sort of does it well is, Halo: Infinite (uses that meachanic for all its vehicles). Now, like I mentioned before, I know the devs aren't running a charity, so naturally, customization bundles for each tank can be sold to keep their lights on. For example: an Eastern front tiger bundle, where you get all the various camo, markings, and stowage options for tigers that have been historically used in the Eastern front.
That said, I honestly think that selling camo nets or twigs must never be an option. IMHO, that would be way too pay2win, so those should be unlocked with the player level instead. I honestly think some of these paid camo dlc we currently have for the infantry can make it really hard to spot players in certain conditions and maps.
Lastly, we definitely need more variety with the destroyed tanks. Meaning, once the tank is destroyed, it should be displayed in the same position it was standing rather than using a generic model. Ammo stowage detonations should send the turrets flying or blow open the hatches with a pillar of fire blowing out of the tank. There's so much reference they can use. They could go nuts with this just for pure (and much needed) eye candy that this game can provide.
@@hodsmat That all sounds amazing!
Correct me if I'm wrong, Tigers featured in N.Africa but the brits didn't have a tank that could reliably penetrate their frontal armor(?) and so they used AT guns as their only option to take out a Tiger.
If I'm right, does that mean sticking with historic accuracy would mean the N.African maps feature a Tiger that can't be countered unless you use AT guns? Do you think that would work / there is a work around for that?
I'd also like to see tank combat updated. The hit registration is frustrating, but overall it could be improved. They would definitely need a decent tutorial to explain it all too!
that trailer looked like it belonged on the PS2
@joncardo1 I think you just did the PS2 a disservice there Jon!
It wasn't just the fact that it LOOKED bad, it was also that it seems to have been based on what a little baby images WW2 looked like. It felt lame and immature and childish.
I’d rather a good update rather than a glitchy update that takes a month to fix and I think many others would
@britishfish4930 It seems that has been too much to ask for a while now!
@@twiglets2 very true
Pretty sure the new maps were not finished by black matter
@mptoast4061 It would be interesting to know for sure as the general consensus is that Team17 had very little to do with them.
I haven't a clue if that's true but as the British forces update was originally slated for 2022 it would make sense if blackmatter did the majority of the work I guess?
I plan to finish my PhD and find a job so I can pay 50% tax.
@joggerino3284 which country?
@@twiglets2 Middle East (Germany)